I agree. If someone chooses the risk of cancer for themselves in return for feeling more meaningful, I would understand the choice. But I still don’t want them to push such choice on me.
It is possible that I would choose a different set of constraints to keep my life meaningful. But being able to die randomly in a very painful way does not seem especially meaningful to me, so I would exclude that from the package, thank you very much.
(Generally, this sounds like the usual slippery slope fallacy. “If we cure cancer, we will do more and more things, until ultimately human life loses all meaning!” Yeah, if you are so sure it works this way, why stop at cancer? Why not also abolish cars or hot water? Maybe ban computers in general. Use mentats for math.)
I agree. If someone chooses the risk of cancer for themselves in return for feeling more meaningful, I would understand the choice. But I still don’t want them to push such choice on me.
It is possible that I would choose a different set of constraints to keep my life meaningful. But being able to die randomly in a very painful way does not seem especially meaningful to me, so I would exclude that from the package, thank you very much.
(Generally, this sounds like the usual slippery slope fallacy. “If we cure cancer, we will do more and more things, until ultimately human life loses all meaning!” Yeah, if you are so sure it works this way, why stop at cancer? Why not also abolish cars or hot water? Maybe ban computers in general. Use mentats for math.)